Here Comes the Drone Backlash

(Source: computerworld.com)  

Consumer drone technology is barely taking off, and already a harsh public backlash is growing.

Your typical garden variety consumer drone is lightweight, battery operated, has four propellers and is controlled by a smartphone. Most have cameras and beam back live video, which can be recorded for posterity. Some have high-quality HD cameras on them, and from that high vantage point can take stunning photos and videos.

Drones are fun. They’re exciting. They’re accessible. But increasingly, they’re becoming unacceptable.

I’m sensing a growing backlash, a kind of social media pitchfork mob against drones and drone fans. It’s only a matter of time, and not much time, before it will be politically incorrect to express any kind of enthusiasm for drones in polite company. I fear that many are about to embark on an “everybody knows drones are bad” mentality that will suppress the nascent industry and spoil this innovative and exhilarating technology.

Here’s what’s driving the coming backlash:

1. They’re called drones

We used the D word for both massive, weaponized aircraft-carrier launched drones that drop bombs, and also for hobbyist quadcopters that fit in a backpack. The word “drone” is fun and easy to use, but for the fearful it makes them sound more dangerous than they are by association.

2. Most people don’t have drones

Consumer drones are particularly vulnerable to social stigma because anyone could be affected — threatened, violated, harassed, annoyed — but most people won’t actually participate. For the majority of people, drones are something “they” use that could affect “me.”

Contrast drones to smartphones, the use of which is far more likely to annoy you and invade your privacy, but which is socially accepted because pretty much everybody’s got one.

3. The media neo-luddite impulse

I’ll tell you a little secret about the mass media, which you probably already intuited: They pander to the neo-luddites in their audiences. Watch the 6 o’clock news, and it will be filled with a feigned “oh, gosh, this new-fangled technology is really moving too fast” mentality, even as they use Perceptive Pixel displays and holograms to report the news.

Plus, anytime drones interfere with, say, firefighters, it’s always going to be big news.

You can be sure that the mass media reporting will always fall on the side of being vexed and put off by quadcopters.

4. Pandering politicians

When politicians see a parade, they scramble to get in front and pretend to lead it. As the public turns against drones, there will be grandstanding hearings and calls for the Federal Aviation Administration to institute controls and bans.

Scaremongering wins elections.

5. Innumeracy

The public is very bad at weighing the relative risks and benefits of anything. Media reports like to throw out big numbers.

The best example: Drones have been reported buzzing, harassing and threatening airplanes recently. The occurrence is so common that 12 incidents were reported in a single day recently and a total of 700 reported incidents so far this year.

Wow! That sounds horrible. Of course, any number of drones flying near any number of planes is too many. There’s no question about that.

But how much actual risk is buried in those 700 reports?

For starters, some unknown number of them involve a case of mistaken identity. One widely reported incident in the news involved a United Airlines pilot who said a drone struck his airplane. Less widely reported was that a subsequent investigation found that it was actually a bird strike.

In fact, almost none of these reports involve actual strikes. A pilot sees or thinks he or she sees a drone “over there” somewhere. It has to be reported. And, in fact, anything inside the airport fence or in airspace used for takeoff and landing is unacceptable and must be reported.

But to put the number 700 in perspective, let’s compare it to the 13,759 reported cases of wildlife strikes, mostly birds, in 2014.

Unlike the drone reports, these aren’t sightings of animals “over there.” They’re reports of actual contact (usually violent, fatal to the animal and potentially life-threatening to passengers) between animals and airplanes.

Some experienced pilots are starting to push back against the hysteria over drones, pointing out that, compared with bird strikes, drones are nothing to be alarmed about.

In fact, it’s likely that drones could be used by airports to chase away birds and other animals and prevent dangerous contact with aircraft.

Continue Reading at computerworld.com…